Re: Re: [GENERAL] +/- Inf for float8's

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] +/- Inf for float8's
Date: 2000-10-12 14:56:57
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0010121653520.776-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian writes:

> My assumption is that we never came up with any solution to this, right?

It stopped when we noticed that proper support for non-finite values will
break indexing, because the relational trichotomy doesn't hold.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Hoffmann 2000-10-12 15:06:19 Re: Where's the PostgreSQL logo these days?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-10-12 14:51:57 Re: [HACKERS] Re: postgresql 7.1